Napoleon Historiography

1657 Words4 Pages

An Historiography Review of Napoleon failed invasion of Russia using Clausewitz and Theodore Evault Dodge books THESIS: Napoleon Bonaparte, an unparalleled military commander who conquered most of Europe around the early 1800’s, invaded Russia in 1812, who was under the rule of Tsar Alexander at the time, lost three quarters of his Grande Armee which was composed of soldiers from all over Europe totaling 600,000 soldiers. This part of history is the most talked about and studied military campaign even today by scholars and military school alike. Napoleon’s invasion of Russia in 1812 was a extraordinary expedition that shocked the French Empire to its foundation and led to its eventual collapse just a year later. This Historiographic comparative …show more content…

However, both authors argue that Napoleon could have saved the lives of his troops if he wasn’t over confident about his chances. The logistics during a war is one of the most or is the most important part of going into battle because without a properly establish logistics organizing large armies would be impossible. Napoleon failed in this aspect in many different occasion during the invasion. As explained by Theodore Dodge napoleon could have destroyed the Russians quicker than they did which would have let them return home earlier and saved thousands of lives. Clausewitz argued also how logistics played a big role in Napoleons campaign in a way that was negatively impacted Napoleons chances of victory throughout his campaign. However, this failure in logistic wasn’t caused by lack of loyalty but by napoleons tirades where he would humiliate his officers in front of their men when they report to him that his troops were lacking food and supplies. Theodore disagreed with how napoleon treated his officers during this campaign. The officers didn’t want to be the center of Napoleons arrogance, so they would lie about their reports to napoleon. Being punished for telling the truth was what the officer wasn’t able to cope with. So the easiest way for them not to get punished was to lie about their food supply amount. Theodore argued that if Napoleon fix the problem of …show more content…

Theodore argued that Napoleon sickness helped in a negative way throughout the campaign such that Napoleon wasn’t able lift the morale of his troops during the campaign. Throughout Napoleons campaign on the European front he has always was able to interact and make speeches in front of the whole of his army which helped bring the troops morale exponentially. However, during the campaign in Russia Napoleon was sick with an unknown disease that rendered him unable to interact for very long. Communication is the most important aspect in the war because without communication an army cannot be organized. An army’s morale also is very high at the beginning of the war but it will constantly fall as the war goes on, so a morale booster such as speeches and better accommodations would have helped the troop’s morale. Reiterating here that Napoleon should have brought more doctors which would have his army survive longer than it

Open Document